Sex-ed curriculum needs independent review

Quite a ruckus flared up this week over Ontario’s new sex-ed curriculum.

Some parents are justifiably concerned that Benjamin Levin, who has now pleaded guilty to three child pornography charges, was responsible for overseeing this curriculum as Ontario’s deputy minister of education.

The most strident opposition comes from religious groups and social conservatives.

Its most vocal critic, Charles McVety, represents the religious right while the curriculum’s proponents comprise the more socially progressive elements of Canadian society.

It is obvious, then, that the new curriculum has polarized Ontarians — a situation that demands a resolution.

The fact Levin was at the helm in and of itself warrants some objective oversight of the curriculum document.

Parents and caregivers have genuine concerns that need to be allayed through independent scrutiny.

This is not to downplay the claim children in today’s sexually open atmosphere must be equipped to deal with many dangers.

Most would agree children need candid and practical advice about how to keep themselves as safe as possible from sexual predators.

Responsible parents know dangers can be lurking for their children even behind their own bedroom doors, and children themselves need to be made aware of these risks.

Children must be equipped to recognize sexual abuse and to be assertive in countering it and reporting it.

Some parents believe such information on sex prematurely robs children of their innocence.

However, they must understand that if children are not guided properly, they can have their innocence snatched in far more destructive ways.

Therefore, a carefully crafted sex-ed and health curriculum is needed at an early stage of a child’s school life.

I support any curriculum that may reduce the risk of children encountering sexual abuse.

However, the new curriculum offers educational overload on matters that likely will provide no such safeguards, and this overload itself presents dangers.

Grade seven students, for example, will be told that anal and vaginal sex can be equated.

Leaving aside any moral judgment on such equivalencies, it is dangerous to teach anal sex does not pose greater risks of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Uncertainty about gender identity also seems an unnecessary piece of information for young students.

While a small minority of students may indeed be confused about their gender identity, such an issue should be addressed by specialists rather than teachers, who should be more concerned about honing pupils’ skills in multiplication and sentence structure.

To delegate such delicate and personal issues to teachers as dealing with the gender identity of their students can rightly be seen as objectionable.

Children can be made aware of dangers in ways that are not graphic, and they can be taught to respect diversity in less explicit ways.

Any pragmatic, responsible parent, whether progressive or conservative in outlook, likely has at least some concerns about this curriculum.

Many parents may simply pull their children out of the classroom.

One must then ask how much inequality in educational opportunity this will cause, over matters that are significant in a child’s life.

Noble intentions are not enough.

Any curriculum should be sufficiently free of controversy that all children can benefit from it.

The sex-ed curriculum will be put in place this September.

Before that, an independent body should at least review it and make parents aware of these issues, to enable them to make the ultimate call about what their children learn in school on an informed basis.